I don’t have too much commentary to offer on this developing story of federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) officials and their standoff with a Nevada rancher; if you aren’t familiar with the details, you really should watch this short news clip.

Beyond the particular issues of the standoff and the eerie memories of Ruby Ridge and Waco, there is the ominous notion of a “First Amendment Area.” Those versed in Rothbardian libertarian theory know that it’s silly to speak of “free speech rights” as opposed to general property rights. However, given the framework of legislation that the United States federal government uses, it is definitely creepy that they think they can designate particular geographical regions to which the Bill of Rights applies.

Well I did not realize the land is un-owned. I figured the BLM uses taxpayer money to purchase land from a private owner. Maybe I do not understand what BLM is/does?

I was not suggesting this man purchase this BLM land, but some other land so he could do his own thing. Ownership. I guess He is trying to stay he homesteaded this land long ago, therefore rightful owner.

I stick by my original comment, BLM grazing is silly. Private people get dirt cheap lease, make tons of money and taxpayer subsidies all of it. Supposedly BLM land is multiuse sharing but loads of cow poop never get along with any other purpose.

That works better when you have some intrinsic knowledge or skill that make you valuable and you can take your value with you. For a rancher, part of the value proposition is their relationship with the land, and it isn’t portable.

The land isn’t unowned, it is owned by you, Mr. Citizen, or the fed gov.

Ranchers pay and do improvements on BLM land they lease. It is not unlike any other lease and they pay for the use. These lands were supposed to be managed, not held as parks, or as is more the case, the king’s forest, as most Fed property is off limits to all. It is insane how much land west of Iowa is government owned or controlled. Realistically all property is government controlled as there is little you can do without their permission.

This Bundy guy is almost certainly a taco short of a platter, but it is interestng to watch. What I found most interesting is that it is costing the BLM well in excess of $3 mil to impound 900 head. I do some cowboy work, and there is no way it cost sthat much to gather cattle, even with aircraft. The inefficiencies of government are astounding.

I’ve asked you this in past threads, but I still don’t understand the justification for the Rothbardian theory of homesteading. The only putative justification I’ve gotten from you is that it minimizes violence compared to all other systems. But why is that? What makes you say that any of these three systems will produce more or less violence than one another?

1. Homesteading guarantees you an absolute right to the land as long as you live.
2. Homesteading guarantees you a right to the land as long as you continue to mix your labor with the land on at least a yearly basis.
3. Whoever is currently using a piece of land has a right to keep using it, but then as soon as he stops someone else can start using it.

It seems to me that under each of these systems, people who agree with the system may not initiate violence, but people who disagree with it may decide to initiate violence to oppose it. And presumably all three systems allow you to unambiguously identify a property owner for a given piece of land at any given time. So what distinguishes system 1 from the others?

Dan, I listened to the podcast, but it doesn’t give a defense of the libertarian theory of property rights, just an explanation of what the view is. It doesn’t provide a justification for the theory of homesteading at all.

Ken, I know this is a difficult concept for you to understand, but sometimes it is better to refer people to someone you think will be able to explain a concept much better than you could do yourself.

See, I believe Keshav wants to actually better understand our position, and even though we’ll probably never see eye to eye on these things, he seems like a nice guy so I’m willing to try to help him with that as best I can. So, if I think I can adequately explain a concept to where he’ll understand my position, then I’ll do that. If I think I’m not well versed enough on a subject to try to teach it to someone, but it know other people who are, then I’ll send them their way.

If you go into someone else’s property without their permission and you work on their land with the intention of growing some crops and selling them without their knowledge, and then they catch you and kick you off the land, they would be reaping the fruit of your labor. Does that mean you’re their slave?

So “reaping the fruit of someone else’s labor” doesn’t seem to be a good justification for the Rothbardian theory of homesteading.

“In effect, you have been forced to labor for someone else.” This doesn’t make sense to me. Suppose there’s a open field no one has ever gone to, but Bill has claimed ownership of it on the basis of seeing it first. John comes along, sees the land, and starts walking toward it with the intention of farming on it.

Bill tells John, “Hey, that’s my land! I saw it first, so don’t even think of going there or farming on it. Anyway it will be a wasted effort, because the moment you leave the land I intend to move in and reap the rewards of your labor.”

Now if John ignores this and farms on the land anyway, and then Bill follows through on his threat as soon as John leaves, in what sense can it be said that John was forced to work for Bill? He could have avoided working for Bill if he has stayed off the land. So I don’t see how this justifies the Rothbardian theory of homesteading at all.

“You can’t claim ownership of something without transforming it for a specific purpose.” Yes, Bill’s claim is completely contrary to the Rothbardian theory of homesteading. I wasn’t trying to say tht Bill is necessarily the rightful owner of it, merely that he thinks he’s the owner of it.

In any case, the point of my example wasn’t to claim that Bill is the owner and John is a trespasser. The point is that John is not actually being forced to work for Bill. He can choose to never step foot on the land, and then none of the fruits of his labor need ever go to Bill. So how can “being forced to work for someone else” be a justification of the Rothbardian theory of homesteading?

Keshav, out of curiosity, did you check out that link I left for you? I mean, if you are geniunely interested in understanding our views you’d have better luck reading that kind of material than arguing with people on this blog about it.

Keshav
The Rothbardian position is that free exchange preserves justice. So if you start with a just distribution and have only free exchange you move from just state to just state. This could be an argument for a complete free market if we start in a just state. Rothbard concocted the mystical notion that “homesteading” ends the regress. That is the basis of the commitment to homesteading as the canonical basis of ownership.
It is an elaborate form of special pleading.

This could be an argument for a complete free market if we start in a just state.

Another argument would be that regulating the economy actually causes injustice, whether we assume a just state or not.

I think it would help to point out that the advocates of state intervention view wealth inequality as unjust, typically – which is a distraction from any pursuit of real justice, and it’s a belief that, interestinly, sows the seeds for the very corporatism and imperialism they think they are fighting.

“I’ve asked you this in past threads, but I still don’t understand the justification for the Rothbardian theory of homesteading.”

You have shown you do understand it, you only don’t accept it because ultimately you believe God owns everything, and if one person acts in accordance with God’s will while another acts in accordance with the Devils’ will, then you believe the thing is owned by the person who acts in accordance with God’s will.

Thus, if a Devil worshipping cult homesteaded a piece of land, while a nice Hindu family is excluded from that land and are on the verge of starvation, and the dad says he heard God telling him to oust the Devil worshippers, then you would side with the non-homesteaders. Thus, you “cannot understand” why a Rothbardian would side with the Devil worshippers

“The only putative justification I’ve gotten from you is that it minimizes violence compared to all other systems. But why is that?”

This has already been explained.

It is because it is the only non-violent way of CREATING property and TRANSFERRING property from person to person, given that there are ideological conflicts over the use of scarce, rivalrous land.

“What makes you say that any of these three systems will produce more or less violence than one another?”

Because it is the only ethic that requires zero violence. No violence is created when an individual homesteads land. No violence is created when that individual trades the land.

“1. Homesteading guarantees you an absolute right to the land as long as you live.”

“2. Homesteading guarantees you a right to the land as long as you continue to mix your labor with the land on at least a yearly basis.”

“3. Whoever is currently using a piece of land has a right to keep using it, but then as soon as he stops someone else can start using it.”

“It seems to me that under each of these systems, people who agree with the system may not initiate violence, but people who disagree with it may decide to initiate violence to oppose it. And presumably all three systems allow you to unambiguously identify a property owner for a given piece of land at any given time. So what distinguishes system 1 from the others?”

The preference of the homesteader. Only in the 1st case are you recognizing the preferences of the homesteader as “the” justified preference. In the 2nd and 3rd, you are introducing other people’s preferences into the mix as if they are owners, which contradicts the homesteading principle.

“But if I can’t sell my “shares” and cease being taxed to pay for its “maintenance”, then how can it be said that I own it?”

What you can do with your shares depends on the rules governing those shares, such as the articles of association / incorporation in the case of a company, or the constitution and law in the case of a country.

“A company’s articles of association commonly allow the directors to refuse to register any transfer of a share submitted to the company.”

So, Phillipe, can we say that you would’ve sided with slave owners because the law allowed slavery, and that you would’ve sent slaves back to their owners because of the Fugitive Slave Act was the law, as well?

And when abolitionists argued that you can’t own people, you would’ve admonished them for confusing their imagination with reality, right?

Phillipe, can you clarify something for me? People pointed out to you that they believe the laws saying the government owns that land are unjust, therefore they are not legitimate owners of that land. You’re response was that the government owns the land because US law says they own it. And you even chastise them for confusing reality with their imagination.

Now, as far as I can see, in order for you to be logically consistent, you’d have to say that slave owners were the rightful owners of their slaves because US laws said they were the rightful owner, and you should chastise abolitionists for confusing reality with their imagination when they argue that the laws saying the slave owners owned those people were unjust, and therefore they were not legitimate owners of them.

If you want to argue the government owns that land, you might want to come up with a better justification than “the law says they do.”

Philippe, if Guest believes that the land is unowned, I would have to disagree with him because I believe somebody out there can demonstrate that they have a legitimate claim of ownership over that land.

But, Guest claimed that there is no such thing as “public” land, not that nobody owned the land. I believe his position is that the government doesn’t have a legit at claim of ownership over that land based on libertarian property rights theory, and any law that states they are the proper owner is unjust, and, therefore, illegitimate.

All that said, you claimed that since US law says the government owns the land that that means they are the rightful owner of the land. And, again, that means if you want to be logically consistent, that you believed slaves were the rightful property of the slave owners because the US law said so.

Hey, I don’t care whether you agree with me on libertarian property rights theory. I’m simply trying to get you to see what kind of awful roads you’d have to go down to be logically consistent when you use US law as your sole factor on determining who owns what.

“you claimed that since US law says the government owns the land that that means they are the rightful owner of the land.”

I can’t say for certain if someone or something is the ‘rightful’ owner of land. Factually there are owners, and the law governing land in the US is US law, not 18th century French law, or the Code of Hammurabi, or guest’s made-up theory law, for example.

No, I don’t believe that slaves were the rightful property of slavers.

I didn’t say that you would be. If you inherit shares, and for some reason you aren’t allowed by the company’s rules to sell them to someone else, you could just disown them. Or sell them back to the company, for example.

Hey, let me know if you have no interest in having an honest discussion about our differing views. I have no interest in wasting my time with BS responses like that. I could waste my time talking with losers like Ken B if I wanted to put up with that.

Clearly, the argument that there is no such thing as “public” land means that we believe calling something “public” land doesn’t make any sense, based on our theory of property rights, because the State has no legitimate claim to ownership of property.

“I can’t say for certain if someone or something is the ‘rightful’ owner of land.”

OK, then that means you have no theory of property rights, correct? Otherwise, I’m not sure what you mean by that statement.

“Factually there are owners, and the law governing land in the US is US law, not 18th century French law, or the Code of Hammurabi, or guest’s made-up theory law, for example.”

All of those theory’s are made-up. Every political philosophy has a “made-up” theory of property rights and law. The question is which theory is correct and just. Also, it’s not Guest’s theory, it’s libertarian theory.

“No, I don’t believe that slaves were the rightful property of slavers.”

Well, then that means your argument that the US government is the rightful owner of that land because the US law says they are, is an invalid argument. The reason it is invalid is for the same reason it is invalid to say the slavers were rightful owners of the slaves because the US law says they were.

Yes, people disagree over these theories. I’m not sure why you’re pointing that out, though. Are you suggesting that since people disagree over which theory is correct and just, then that means no theory is correct or just?

Not necessarily. It means that, for example, two people might both believe that their theory is right and just, and both claim to own something on the basis of their theory, or claim that the other person doesn’t own something on the basis of their theory.

How they resolve their disagreement ends up determining who actually owns or doesn’t own that thing in reality.

For example, an anarcho-capitalist man ‘homesteads’ a patch of land he thinks is empty. Then a tribe of men come along and tell him to get off their ancestral lands. He tells them to leave him alone or he’ll shoot. They proceed to knock over his fence and his tomatoes and move towards him with knives drawn, and he shoots them dead. He now claims the property as his own.

My contention was that anyone could merely assert their claim to ownership, and your way of dealing with having to determine which one of us was the owner was to say that I would be merely “one of” the owners.

So, yes; You did say that the mere claim of ownership makes you at least a partial owner.

Then a tribe of men come along and tell him to get off their ancestral lands.

Collectives, such as tribes, can’t own something. Only individuals can own things.

He tells them to leave him alone or he’ll shoot. They proceed to knock over his fence and his tomatoes and move towards him with knives drawn, and he shoots them dead. He now claims the property as his own.

So … might makes right?

Or maybe we’re talking past each other when we speak of “ownership”.

We mean that property rights are a natural extension of self-ownership. If we modify an unowned resource to suit our purposes, the result of that modification is property – otherwise we would be the slaves of someone else who presumes to come along and tell us what to do with that modified resource.

“How they resolve their disagreement ends up determining who actually owns or doesn’t own that thing in reality.

For example, an anarcho-capitalist man ‘homesteads’ a patch of land he thinks is empty. Then a tribe of men come along and tell him to get off their ancestral lands. He tells them to leave him alone or he’ll shoot. They proceed to knock over his fence and his tomatoes and move towards him with knives drawn, and he shoots them dead. He now claims the property as his own.”

If I understand all your positions correctly, you would argue that if Cliven Bundy is able to use violence or other means to get the State to back down and leave that land, then Bundy would be the owner of the land in reality, correct? Not quite a might makes right theory, because you don’t have any method to determine who would be the rightful owner, but your view is whoever is able to physically control the land is the owner, right?

I would have a different perspective. While I acknowledge that whoever is able to physically control a given piece of land is the person(s) who will be able to use that land, I would not necessarily use owner to describe them. I think being an owner of property means you have a just and the best claim to that piece of land. If I thought you didn’t have a rightful claim to a piece of land you controlled, I would call you an occupier or something along those lines.

“I’m thinking about what actually happens in reality whereas you’re thinking in terms of moral absolutes.”

No, I’m just trying to understand your view, but it is very difficult.

Can you give me a yes or no to these two questions?

If I understand all your positions correctly, you would argue that if Cliven Bundy is able to use violence or other means to get the State to back down and leave that land, then Bundy would be the owner of the land in reality, correct?

Not quite a might makes right theory, because you don’t have any method to determine who would be the rightful owner, but your view is whoever is able to physically control the land is the owner, right?

And if your response is no, can you explain why so that I can understand what your position is?

“if Cliven Bundy is able to use violence or other means to get the State to back down and leave that land, then Bundy would be the owner of the land in reality, correct?”

I hesitate to say yes, because I can’t see any means by which he would be able to establish it as a fact through violence. If he were able to defend his claim in the courts and defeat the government that way, then he would be the owner in fact.

Then I’m a little confused. In the example you have with the anarchist vs the tribe, the anarchist owned the land because he was able to physically defend it from the tribe, according to you.

I gave an example where Bundy was analogous to the anarchist and the US government is analogous to the tribe. But when Clive fights off the US government he isn’t the owner, and he won’t be the owner until they decide he is.

Why wouldn’t the anarchist have to get permission from the tribe, through their court system, but Bundy has to get permission from the US government? Or asked another way, why does the anarchist become the owner by physically defending the land, but Bundy doesn’t become the owner if he can physically defend the land?

in my example both the anarcho-capitalist and the tribe believe that the land belongs to them, and the anarcho-capitalist’s use of force effectively settles the matter by killing (or, alternatively, scaring off) the opposition. He believes he is acting in self defence, whilst they believe he is aggressing against them.

“But when Clive fights off the US government he isn’t the owner, and he won’t be the owner until they decide he is”.

I don’t see how Clive would successfully fight off the government using violence, given the facts of the situation. That’s only going to end up with him going to jail.

It could be that he gets enough popular support behind him that the government gives up and decides to leave things as they are. Or perhaps there could be a split, or revolt, within in the government, leading to a change in policy. Perhaps there could be a successful legal challenge. These are all possibilities.

The reason I mentioned the possibility of defeating the government in the courts is because that is a real option (perhaps not in this particular case – I don’t know enough about it to say – but in general).

OK, so the anarchist owns the land in your example because he thinks he owns it and was able to fight off the tribe.

So, if Clive thinks he owns the land, and is able to fight off the government (it doesn’t matter how likely this is. I’m simply presenting a hypothetical to better understand your position) then that me he is the owner as far as your concerned, right? I mean, my scenario is analogous to the one you presented so I’m not sure why you wouldn’t agree.

Hypothetically, yes. But it’s not realistic. Does he establish his patch as the independent territory of Bundystan, spend his entire life there, somehow repelling every intrusion by the various forces of the United States? How does he survive in this situation? The answer is it doesn’t happen. Instead he just finds himself in jail, or worse.

“Hypothetically, yes. But it’s not realistic. Does he establish his patch as the independent territory of Bundystan, spend his entire life there, somehow repelling every intrusion by the various forces of the United States? How does he survive in this situation? The answer is it doesn’t happen. Instead he just finds himself in jail, or worse.”

Yeah, I agree it’s not realistic that he’d be able to fight off the government. Heck, this is the same government who has been dropping bombs on children for years, so I think it’s a safe bet that this isn’t going to end well for Bundy.

I just wanted to wrap my head around how you determine who owns what based on your view of property rights, which I now feel like I understand better, so thank you.

My only other question is why you don’t think you can know whether someone is the rightful owner of a piece of land? Are you just saying you haven’t settled on a political philosophy yet, so you don’t know what view on property rights you agree with? Or are you making a much stronger claim, like that is impossible to determine a rightful owner of any piece of land?

However, given the framework of legislation that the United States federal government uses, it is definitely creepy that they think they can designate particular geographical regions to which the Bill of Rights applies.

It’s difficult for Americans to view their government as promoting Socialism because our Founders, in spite of the fact that their goal was always the maximization of individual liberty, they inadvertently failed to be consistent and therefore embraced some aspects of Socialism (e.g., the Labor Theory of Value, Agrarianism).

Because of this, many Americans are not going to see a problem with the Feds’ actions.

The labor theory of value is not an “aspect of socialism” it’s an (erroneous) aspect of Classical (pre-marhinalism) economics. It was popular with certain socialists, who believed it had radical implications. Marx, in particular, formulated a theory of exploitation of the workers from it. But David Ricardo never said anything like that.

The Bill of Rights applies to every area equally. The restrictions on speech in the video have to comply with Supreme Court decisions regarding time, place and manner restrictions.

Arguing that the Bill of Rights has been suspended is simply ignorant.

If you see a problem with the Fed’s action, you don’t know the law or the facts.

It’s not difficult to view the govt as promoting socialism when you recall that under the Tea Party definition of socialist, Milton Friedman was a socialist. Basically anyone to the left of John Birch is a socialist. The founding fathers who ratified the Constitution and created a nation known as the United States of America were certainly to the left of John Birch since they believed in a separation of church and state.

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

The rules of legal interpretation are rules of common sense, adopted by the courts in the construction of the laws. The true test, therefore, of a just application of them is its conformity to the source from which they are derived.

Case law is completely irrelevant under the Constitution, despite what the courts say to the contrary.

But, of course, individual rights supercede government laws, governments deriving their just power from the consent of the governed, and all.

Creepy that they think they can designate particular geographical regions to which the Bill of Rights applies?

So you don’t mind if someone stands in front of your house with a bullhorn 24×7 announcing that inflation is 1.1%?

There are time, place and manner restrictions placed on speech. I’m sure the govt has a valid reason for creating that speech area. Most likely doing it as a courtesy to the other residents in the community.

Why do you so readily trust your government slave masters? What is it about them that engenders such childish trust? Is it the wholesale lying, the illegal surveillance, the insufferable arrogance, the chronic theft of your income or just the way they start endless wars with made up reasons and false intelligence.

Let me see if this helps you: do you see the important difference between hypothetically saying there are narrow areas where speech is restricted-say, a rule that establishes a distance from private property at which you can yell through a megaphone), versus saying instead there are narrowly defined areas in which your speech can’t be restricted?

Let me make it easy: in the former case, the presumption that one is unrestricted in one’s speech prevails, and only with some exceptions. In the latter case, however, there is no presumption that one unrestricted in one’s speech. Everywhere it may be restricted and is to be presumed restricted, except only in a few designated areas.

Surely you are capable of seeing a difference between these two things?

The government owns all of the land within its borders. It allows some of us to rent it (in the form of property taxes). The sooner everyone realizes this, the sooner we can have clear conversations on these topics.

Yes they give us just enough “ownership” as to not lose total motivation. Same with taxes, dollar value, purchasing power. Give us just enough so we don’t give up. Dangle the carrot… Causes and products they believe in, get subsidy and exemption which makes motivation easy if not generous…

FYI, BLM has annual budget of 1.1B. The BLM charges $1.35 for a AUM. An AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month. The grazing fee for 2014 is $1.35 per AUM, the same level as it was in 2013.

Peer seems to thin the grazing system is wrought with mismanagement, although they are coming fro an envirofirst perspective.http://www.peer.org/index.php
.

Here’s what his daughter said. Buy outs of leases along with dirty tricks are not unheard of. The BLM really didn’t do anything illegal. Not paying his fees was not the smartest thing and probably not the best thing to get into a shooting match over (Supposedly some militia members are headed over that way)

I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight.

Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it is in a nut shell.

My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972.

These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars.

These rights to the land use is called preemptive rights.

Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the bureau of land management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches.

My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve.

Instead they began using these money’s against the ranchers.

They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with their own grazing fees.

When they offered to buy my dad out for a penence he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job.

He quit paying the BLM but, tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down.

So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes.

In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business.

Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the indangered species card.

You’ve already heard about the desert tortis.

Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years.

Now they’re desperate.

It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff.

Everything they’re doing at this point is illegal and totally against the constitution of the United States of America.

Now you may be saying,” how sad, but what does this have to do with me?” Well, I’ll tell you.

They will get rid of Cliven Bundy, the last man standing on the Bunkerville allotment and then they will close all the roads so no one can ever go on it again.

Next, it’s Utah’s turn. Mark my words, Utah is next.

Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle do belong to him.

Regardless where they are they are my fathers property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed.

Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it.

They think they can take them over two boarders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfeild Auction and sell them.

All with our tax money.

They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars.

That’s very interesting. I don’t for a moment believe that such an extensive operation is paid for just out of some grazing fees. There’s some serious amounts of Fed money pushing that… difficult to know what motivates them.

Selling a few hundred cattle at auction wouldn’t go close to paying for the number of guns and vehicles out there.